Sunday, May 29, 2011

Evolutionists: Larry Moran Still Correct!

In my previous posts I discussed Larry Moran’s undefendable claim that the vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent. In response evolutionists continue to comment that I have it all wrong and Moran’s claim is quite correct. Here is what one evolutionist wrote:

Common descent is well supported by the evidence in the broken GULO gene (along with myriad other independent lines of evidence in the haplorhine primates). The fixed mutations in the broken gene form a nested hierarchy that matches phylogenies for functional genes. Interestingly, the substitutions differ from those in guinea pigs, which appear to have had an independent loss of GULO. These threads of evidence amount to more than claiming that common descent is only better than pure chance.

But common descent is, in fact, not “well supported” by this evidence. Evolutionists continue to repeat their mantra, but this evidence does not support common descent anymore than a pig with a cold nose supports the claim that pigs can fly. It is true that if pigs can fly, then we would expect to find pigs with cold noses. But we would hardly conclude that the hypothesis that pigs can fly is strongly supported by pigs with cold noses.

Nor do the “independent lines of evidence” support common descent any better. Indeed, the evidence leaves little doubt that what seemed obvious is, in fact, obvious. Common descent not only is intuitively silly, it is scientifically silly as well.

There is, for starters, that little problem of mechanism. Though they can’t supply the details, evolutionists say that a long, lucky, series of garbled, random mutations and other flukes of variation led to the millions and millions of species with all their incredible designs.

Or again, there is the problem of the biological patterns that don’t fit. From the striking similarities found in distant species to the profound differences in otherwise allied species, the predictions of common descent have been falsified many times over.

If ever there was an idea that doesn’t work scientifically, this is it.

It is true that there are patterns that, when taken in isolation, do fit common descent. The vitamin C pseudogene is an example. But this doesn’t magically dissolve the multitude of scientific problems. Yes, the evidence is consistent with common descent, but so too is the rising sun consistent with geocentrism.

As if sensing a problem the evolutionist, in typical fashion, makes a quick switch to metaphysics with a series of rhetorical questions:

If we were to reject common descent, is there some theory dealing with common design that provides a better explanation for a shared, broken gene in a line of otherwise apparently closely related species?

This is the heart of evolutionary thought. It is not that evolution makes sense (it doesn’t), it is that evolutionists believe it is the only choice. Rhetorical questions such as this one are common with evolutionists. A key to understanding evolution is that evolutionists think this line of reasoning is scientific, that such questions can be answered with a high level of certainty, and that in particular the answer is “no.”

But of course, contra evolutionists, science has no way of making such ultimate truth claims. It cannot know all possible explanations. As such scientists do not make sweeping claims that no such reasonable explanation is possible for observations, such as the vitamin C pseudogene patterns. Evolutionists, on the other hand, do.

Another evolutionist wrote that the vitamin C pseudogene pattern is a prediction of evolution given that it is found in certain species. He writes:

For example, given that humans, gorillas and orangutans all have this pseudogene, common descent predicts that chimps will also have it.

This seems reasonable, but since evolution and common descent have made so many false predictions, then certainly we must conclude they are false by modus tollens. If evolutionists use successful predictions to promote their theory, then shouldn’t the many false predictions mean something?

CH:"But common descent is, in fact, not “well supported” by this evidence...this evidence does not support common descent anymore than a pig with a cold nose supports the claim that pigs can fly...we would hardly conclude that the hypothesis that pigs can fly is strongly supported by pigs with cold noses.

If GULO is pseudogenised consistently within a clade (Haplorrhini) but is consistently functional in closely related clades, we would infer under common descent that the gene function was lost once close to the point of cladogenesis. This leads to a prediction that GULO should have been pseudogenised consistently through the clade. And it is.

If GULO were lost independently (e.g. comparing loss in humans to loss in guinea pigs) we would predict the pattern of pseudogenisation to be different, as there are plenty of mutations that could cause the loss of gene function. And it is.

Under evolutionary theory we would predict that the loss of function in GULO will result in loss of conservation - the relaxation of purifying selection - and the accumulation of more differences to GULOP sequences than to functional GULO sequences per unit time as inferred in molecular phylogenies. And this is so. Despite this, we would still expect the differences within a clade such as Haplorrhini to match create a nested hierarchy because of the differing times since divergence as predicted by common descent. And they do.

As if sensing a problem the evolutionist, in typical fashion, makes a quick switch to metaphysics with a series of rhetorical questions:

"If we were to reject common descent, is there some theory dealing with common design that provides a better explanation for a shared, broken gene in a line of otherwise apparently closely related species?"

This is the heart of evolutionary thought. It is not that evolution makes sense (it doesn’t), it is that evolutionists believe it is the only choice.

Wow CH, you're not even making the slightest attempt to hide the blatant canards anymore.

That's not a rhetorical question BTW. If you have a better explanation for the observed patterns, let's hear it. Offer up another choice.

Go ahead CH, back up that bluster. Otherwise you're just whizzing into the wind. Again.

As you are aware, the hypothesized pattern of common descent is evaluated independently of any reference to mechanism.

"Or again, there is the problem of the biological patterns that don’t fit."

yes, there are some examples of convergence. but these are many times fewer in number than the patterns that do fit.

"If evolutionists use successful predictions to promote their theory, then shouldn’t the many false predictions mean something?"

Yes they should. the totality of the evidence should be considered. and when we do that, the supporting evidence far outweighs the contradictory evidence.

"Rhetorical questions such as this one are common with evolutionists. "

As Thorton said, it is not a rhetorical question. the clinical drug trial finds a positive result, searches for potential alternative explanations for their result, finds none, considers their result supported. someone may think of an alternative explanation later, but until then we have to go with what we have, just like all scientists.

"This is the heart of evolutionary thought. It is … that evolutionists believe it is the only choice."

The only choice permitted in evolutionary thought is uncritically fixed to be the most probable choice. I agree that's the heart of Darwinism. And the real perversity of it is the arbitrariness in deciding what is most probable, which just boils down to who can tell the best just-so story.

I wrote: For example, given that humans, gorillas and orangutans all have this pseudogene, common descent predicts that chimps will also have it.

Cornelius wrote:This seems reasonable, but since evolution and common descent have made so many false predictions, then certainly we must conclude they are false by modus tollens.

No, we must not conclude that at all. I would have thought that by now, you should have realized that the expected observations given a certain hypothesis are probabilistic. Here, let me help you:

This is what you want things to be like: If hypothesis H then observation O. Not O, therefore not H.

This is what things are like: If hypothesis H then there is some sort of probability of observation O. Not O, therefore ... well, definitely not not H via modus tollens.

I would also have thought that by now, you should have realized that there are alternatives to strict Popperian falsification for evaluating theories. Heck, you keep referring to one of them quite often. It has even been brought up regarding Moran's posts: use likelihoods to COMPARE theories/hypotheses. In fact, in the second installment (Evolutionist: Larry Moran is correct) of this series of posts, I did just that. Common descent had a higher likelihood than the alternatives proposed - and you can't (and didn't) even complain that said likelihood was low.

Common descent didn't come out looking silly at all - unlike your sophistry.

Shubee:The only choice permitted in evolutionary thought is uncritically fixed to be the most probable choice. I agree that's the heart of Darwinism.

Given that "evolutionary thought" in these very Moran threads has made comparisons between different evolutionary hypotheses with different likelihoods, you are off to a bad start. There are ALWAYS more choices.

CH: But common descent is, in fact, not “well supported” by this evidence.

Which, of course, is the crux of your post and a disingenuous red herring. You're quibbling over the use of the word "well supported" in an attempt to distract your readers from the reality of the situation. The rest of your post is simply more of the same hand waving we see here on a regular basis.

If you consistently applied the strict interpretation you're using here, (positive support based on direct empirical observation) you'd be throwing the entirety of science under the bus. That is, unless you have an answer to the problem of induction. Furthermore, all observations are theory laden. Specifically, they depend on a chain of hard to vary explanations of phenomena. Yet you conditionally (or unknowingly due to your ignorance) accept these chains of explanations, except when it does not suit your agenda.

To illustrate my point, I'll yet again ask you two simple, direct questions, which you have continually dodged.

01: As a supposed empiricist, is there an answer to Hume's problem of induction? If so, what is it?

02: As a confessed Christian, where do you put divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and mathematical deduction?

Note: these are NOT rhetorical questions. Your answers, or lack here of, are directly relevant to the issue at hand. In the absence of such answers, you're merely attacking a straw man.

Hume's problem of induction clearly limits the certainly of scientific claims. Apparently, you didn't get the memo.

No one would disagree with limited common descent. It is universal common descent that is problematic.

Phillip Johnson brought to light what he called Berra's blunder. Using a series of four Corvette models, Dr. Berra purported to show descent with modification. It is obvious to the casual observer that Corvettes are designed.

No doubt there are parts that are common between two or more succeeding generations of Corvettes just as there are parts that are common to two or more succeeding generations of animals.

Unless the design hypothesis is ruled out in advance, I don't see how universal common descent can be demonstrated.

In other words, what evidence would demarcate unequivocally between the design hypothesis and the common descent hypothesis?

20 million base pairs of the human genome are more similar to orangutans than to chimpanzees. Yet according to the artifical nested hierarchy that evolutionists have invented, chimps are closer on the "tree" to humans. A clear contradiction.

In other words, what evidence would demarcate unequivocally between the design hypothesis and the common descent hypothesis?

The way ID (which I assume you refer to) is stated you can't. Ask Cornelius. He'll tell you that you need to make some metaphysical assumptions regarding the designer in order for you to say something about what should be expected. As it is, ID is happy with the designer having done everything so that it looks like it was due to common descent. It is equally happy with the idea that everything we see poofed into existence two seconds ago.

No one would disagree with limited common descent. It is universal common descent that is problematic.

Phillip Johnson brought to light what he called Berra's blunder. Using a series of four Corvette models, Dr. Berra purported to show descent with modification. It is obvious to the casual observer that Corvettes are designed.

No doubt there are parts that are common between two or more succeeding generations of Corvettes just as there are parts that are common to two or more succeeding generations of animals.

Corvettes don't breed and pass on heritable traits. Every single trait is at the whim of the corvette engineers that model year. Living creature have no choice but to pass on their heritable traits. That's a huge difference right there in Johnson's frankly stupid analogy.

Unless the design hypothesis is ruled out in advance, I don't see how universal common descent can be demonstrated.

It's not ruled out in advance. It just has zero supporting positive evidence. That's why it is ignored by science.

In other words, what evidence would demarcate unequivocally between the design hypothesis and the common descent hypothesis?

A partial list of positive evidence for ID would include

1. A reliable, non-subjective way to tell non-natural “intelligent design” from natural occurring biological features that may mimic design, as opposed to the fatally flawed and subjective EF proposed by Dembski.

2. A proper theory of ID that is not based on negative claims (ToE can’t explain it, so ID must be correct), or personal incredulity (I can’t imagine that this occurred naturally, so it must be designed)

3. A theory of ID that includes realistic, testable hypotheses (as opposed to the ridiculous “try to evolve a flagellum” proposed by Behe), and research that actually performs the tests.

4. A theory of and evidence for design mechanisms to explain how non-natural “intelligently designed” features were actually manufactured. What raw materials were used, what forces or manufacturing techniques were used to assemble the materials into the final product?

5. A way to determine a timeline for when the intelligent design actually took place (frontloading vs. continuous tinkering)

and of course

6. the identity of the Designer.

So there are many things that would unequivocally point to intentional design. But not a single one of those things has ever been provided by the ID camp.

Doublee: Unless the design hypothesis is ruled out in advance, I don't see how universal common descent can be demonstrated.

Doublee,

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Cornelius is essentially claiming that all explanations are equal in the absence of direct observations. However, should we take this claim seriously then we can't demonstrate anything without a solution to the problem of induction.

This is because observations themselves are based on a chain of hard to vary explanations about phenomena we observe.

To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this lump of coal weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting pieces of coal is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.

As such, Cornelius selective objections to science appear irrational. Of course, it could be that Cornelius doesn't really think all explanations are equal, in that he thinks there is a solution to the problem of induction which he has yet to disclose. Otherwise, he's merely attacking a straw man in that universal common decent would be just as indemonstrable as rest of science.

So there are many things that would unequivocally point to intentional design. But not a single one of those things has ever been provided by the ID camp.

Your statement is false. Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which is based on empirically verifiable axioms, unequivocally points to a creation event and life more glorious than what we observe today, which implies design as well as degeneration. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

T: So there are many things that would unequivocally point to intentional design. But not a single one of those things has ever been provided by the ID camp.

Your statement is false. Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem, which is based on empirically verifiable axioms, unequivocally points to a creation event and life more glorious than what we observe today, which implies design as well as degeneration.

LOL! Hardly. Sanford doesn't have a genomic degeneration theorem. He has a genomic degeneration hypothesis that is not supported at all by the empirical evidence. His self-publish book on 'Genetic Entropy' was widely panned in the scientific community for its wild unsubstantiated claims and unsupported conclusions. The 'Mendel's Accountant' program he came up with to back his claims has more holes than machine-gunned Swiss cheese. That includes the fact that the program has some internal hard-coded values that guarantee any starting parameters you enter will still cause a population to go extinct.

Finally, in the real world if Sanford was correct all mammal species with fast reproduction times (like mice, 2-3 generations per year) should have already gone extinct, but here they are still.

Tell us, when was the date for this glorious creation time, and how did you empirically determine it?

LOL! Hardly. Sanford doesn't have a genomic degeneration theorem. He has a genomic degeneration hypothesis that is not supported at all by the empirical evidence. His self-publish book on 'Genetic Entropy' was widely panned in the scientific community for its wild unsubstantiated claims and unsupported conclusions.

Should I assume then that you one of those mainstream evolutionists that rejects the use of modus ponens in logically supported conclusions? Which of Sanford's five empirically verifiable axioms do you assert are wild unsubstantiated claims?

In the real world if Sanford was correct all mammal species with fast reproduction times (like mice, 2-3 generations per year) should have already gone extinct, but here they are still.

So life on Earth has to be a lot younger than is commonly believed. I can accept that.

Tell us, when was the date for this glorious creation time, and how did you empirically determine it?

All conclusions depend on presuppositions. I believe it's perfectly reasonable to accept mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam as an axiom in a non-Darwinian theory. This axiom leads to a crude estimate for the beginning of life on Earth, roughly 60,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Should I assume then that you one of those mainstream evolutionists that rejects the use of modus ponens in logically supported conclusions? Which of Sanford's five empirically verifiable axioms do you assert are wild unsubstantiated claims?

Your 'five verifiable axioms' are so much rhetorical garbage. Quick example - your claim that DNA is a literal abstract alphabet is demonstrably wrong. DNA is a chemical molecule that reacts with other molecules in a complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction to form proteins. It relies solely on the laws of chemistry and physics to proceed. There is nothing abstract about DNA at all.

So life on Earth has to be a lot younger than is commonly believed. I can accept that.

No, according to Sanford's claims mice should already be extinct due to a 'degraded' genome. But they're not. That falsifies Sanford's claims right out of the gate.

All conclusions depend on presuppositions. I believe it's perfectly reasonable to accept mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam as an axiom in a non-Darwinian theory. This axiom leads to a crude estimate for the beginning of life on Earth, roughly 60,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Good lord, not another clueless Creationist boob. The evidence for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam doesn't say they were the only people alive back then and gave rise to the entire human population. They only represent the last human common ancestor of everyone alive today. The population they lived in still had hundreds of thousands of individuals.

I don't know how many Creationists I've come across who make this same stupid mistake as you. It's pretty pathetic.

Should I assume then that you one of those mainstream evolutionists that rejects the use of modus ponens in logically supported conclusions? Which of Sanford's five empirically verifiable axioms do you assert are wild unsubstantiated claims?

Here's another thing that Sanford got wrong. Sanford assumes at one time there was a 'perfect' genome that can only get worse (i.e. lose evolutionary fitness) if it changes. Beside the fact there is zero evidence for this supposition, Sanford ignores that the fitness of a genome can only be determined by how well it preforms in its local environment. A 'perfect' genome that gets copied with 100% fidelity can still lose fitness if the environment changes and the 'perfect' one doesn't do as well in the new surroundings. Also, a genome changed from the 'perfect' standard can outperform the original if it fits the new environment better.

Gaping logic holes like that are one of the many reasons Sanford's ideas got zero traction with the scientific community.

Your 'five verifiable axioms' are so much rhetorical garbage. Quick example - your claim that DNA is a literal abstract alphabet is demonstrably wrong. DNA is a chemical molecule that reacts with other molecules in a complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction to form proteins. It relies solely on the laws of chemistry and physics to proceed. There is nothing abstract about DNA at all.

I did not say and Dr. Sanford did not say that DNA is a literal abstract alphabet. If I’m wrong, please provide a quote. The fact that DNA is a chemical molecule that is responsible for the formation of proteins is perfectly consistent with Sanford's first axiom. http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Furthermore, the mathematical abstraction given to DNA in Sanford's theory is precisely what higher science requires. As the undisputed mathematical genius John von Neumann has said:

"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work."

According to Sanford's claims mice should already be extinct due to a 'degraded' genome. But they're not. That falsifies Sanford's claims right out of the gate.

I have the current edition of Sanford's book. Please provide a verifiable quote.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam doesn't say they were the only people alive back then and gave rise to the entire human population.

I am free to create any axiom I want. How does an original pair of humans affect the original Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam calculation?

Thorton:"DNA is a chemical molecule that reacts with other molecules in a complicated self-sustaining chemical reaction to form proteins. It relies solely on the laws of chemistry and physics to proceed. There is nothing abstract about DNA at all. "

Which low of chemistry make a ribosome put a Leucine when the mRNA has a CUC and a Histidine when it has a CAC?

I did not say and Dr. Sanford did not say that DNA is a literal abstract alphabet. If I’m wrong, please provide a quote.

LOL! It's right there in your "theorem":

"These molecules are the letters of the genetic code, and are shown symbolically as A, T, C, and G. These letters are strung together like a linear text. They are not just symbolically shown as letters, they are very literally the letters of our instruction manual."4,"

I have the current edition of Sanford's book. Please provide a verifiable quote.

I didn't supply it as a quote. It's the logical consequence of Sanford's goofy unsupported idea, and it's demonstrably wrong.

I am free to create any axiom I want. How does an original pair of humans affect the original Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam calculation?

And we're free to laugh at you. That you're too ignorant to understand the most basic of genetic research results doesn't bode too well for the rest of your Creationist claims.

This axiom leads to a crude estimate for the beginning of life on Earth, roughly 60,000 to 200,000 years ago.

How does an original pair of humans affect the original Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam calculation?

Do you know what a genetic population bottleneck is? If all life on Earth began as single breeding pairs 60K-200K years ago, why don't all extant species show clear signs of a severe genetic population bottleneck in that time frame?

There is also the little problem that Y-chromosomal Adam lived about 50,000-80,000 years later than mitochondrial Eve.

Well, strictly speaking, the time difference refers to the gap between reproductive events, so I suppose it's still possible that Adam & Eve were a couple for about 65,000 years.

Then there's the little problem that the Y chromosome and mitochondria account for only a tiny portion of human DNA. The only non-recombining portion. For the rest of the genome, the latest common ancestor will vary on a gene-by-gene (or even nucleotide-by-nucleotide) basis, due to recombination.

It's nice that Cornelius has returned to blogging, but it doesn't appear he has spent his absence trying learn more about science.

but since evolution and common descent have made so many false predictions, then certainly we must conclude they are false by modus tollens. If evolutionists use successful predictions to promote their theory, then shouldn’t the many false predictions mean something?

Predictions by models of complex stochastic systems are typically probabilistic in nature. If A then probably B. Therefore a single not-B does not imply not-A. Modus tollens doesn't apply. Only if the not-B's overwhelm the B's, then there is good reason to call into question A or one of its assumptions.

That's what CH would like you to think. if your'e under the assumption that he actually want's to have genuine discussion on the subject of evidence, etc., then you're in for a rude awakining.

Doublee: Given hypothesis "A" and hypothesis "B", we discover that both hypotheses share a common characteristic. How can that common characteristic be used to determine which hypothesis is correct?

Before we can address this we need look at the role emperical observations play in science.

Cornelius want's you to think that observations are extraplated into theories, whch are then justified by more observations. Since we lack direct obsrvations of universeal common decent, then we find ourselves with asking the question you posed. At which point, convenetly, Cornelius plays the metaphsyics card.

But observations are not the stuff of new theories. For example, was the generalization that the planets will "wander" around the sky in one pattern, rather than another, equivalent to the theory that the planets are actually entire worlds in orbit around the sun, and that the earth was actually one of them? When forming new theories, the unseen (planets as worlds orbiting the sun), does not reseble the seen (lights wandering around in the sky) They come from conjectured explinations about what's unseen, which explain the seen.

Furtehrmore, predictions cannot be justifed by observationatal evidence. An anthropomorphic chicken fed by a farmer each day could conclude it will be continued to be fed each day in the future. An inductionists, thinks observations of being fed each day are extraoplated to form a theory and that each day the chicken is fed further justifies that theory. However, one day the farmer comes along and wrings the chickens neck. While this does illustrate the fact that repeated observations cannot justify theories, it also misses a more fundimental misconception: that one can inductively extrapolate observations to form new theoires. This is because it's impossible to extrapolate observations unless they already exist in a theorietical framework. For example, the chicken must have first held a false explanation of the farmers behavior, such as it kept chickens as pets. Had the chicken held a different explnation, namely the farmer was fattening it up for slaughter, it would have extrapllated the observations differently. Should the amount of food increase, the latter theory would interpreted as omoious while the former theory would signifiy more benevolence.

Cornelius' argument that evolution is "silly" and merely "obvous" is based on the misconception that the unseen resembles the seen and that we extrapolate new theories from observations. Things merely look like they evolved, therefore we merely exteraploled evolutiony thoery from observations.

Either Cornelius is ignorant of this misconception or he's disengeniously presnting it in hope that no one will call him on it.

Given hypothesis "A" and hypothesis "B", we discover that both hypotheses share a common characteristic. How can that common characteristic be used to determine which hypothesis is correct?

We do it by considering ALL the evidence as a whole, not by focusing on one individual piece at a time.

Hypothersis 1 predicts A, B, C, D, E.

Hypothersis 2 predicts A, F, G, H, I.

We observe A, F, G, H, I.

"A" is present in both hypotheses, but which is better supported by ALL the evidence?

It is the differential evidence and not the similar evidence that is the more informative.

They are both equally important.

The design hypothesis does not rule out common descent, so demonstrating common descent does not rule out the design hypothesis.

Yep, and that's why the Design hypothesis is not scientific. While common descent is easily falsifiable, there is no conceivable evidence that will falsify ID. That's why science demands positive evidence of ID before it will consider the hypothesis.

The design hypothesis does not rule out common descent, so demonstrating common descent does not rule out the design hypothesis.

You can never rule design out (e.g. Demsbki's explanatory filter can always give false negatives). It is easy to see why this is the case since an omnipotent designer (which ID is perfectly happy with) could have done/can do ANYTHING.

Along the same line, it is possible that intelligent yellow scmits made it look like humans and chimps have a common ancestor. It is also possible the same intelligent yellow scmits make red traffic lights green. It is also possible that the same intelligent yellow scmits make the wind blow. After all, you can't rule it out.

Now that we have cleared that up: why do you think it is important that we rule design out when talking about the hypothesis of common ancestry? Is it any more important than ruling intelligence out when we see the wind blow?

I did not say and Dr. Sanford did not say that DNA is a literal abstract alphabet. If I’m wrong, please provide a quote.

LOL! It's right there in your "theorem":

"These molecules are the letters of the genetic code, and are shown symbolically as A, T, C, and G. These letters are strung together like a linear text. They are not just symbolically shown as letters, they are very literally the letters of our instruction manual."4,"

I now understand your confusion. You apparently don't know the meaning of the word alphabet.

The word alphabet simply means "the letters of a language in their customary order." According to Sanford and everyone else, the letters of the genetic code are represented symbolically as A, T, C, and G. See http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna for example where it specifically says, "The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T)."

Also, it is widely agreed that DNA is a structure that encodes biological information: See http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050

So you want to laugh? Then laugh at your own remarkable understanding and this: "Nowadays, even most schoolchildren are familiar with the concept that DNA encodes genetic information."http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n10/full/ng1006-1104.html

Here's another thing that Sanford got wrong. Sanford assumes at one time there was a 'perfect' genome that can only get worse (i.e. lose evolutionary fitness) if it changes. Beside the fact there is zero evidence for this supposition, …

I see that you don't know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. So once again you demonstrate misunderstanding what most schoolchildren are familiar with.

Thorton: Here's another thing that Sanford got wrong. Sanford assumes at one time there was a 'perfect' genome that can only get worse (i.e. lose evolutionary fitness) if it changes. Beside the fact there is zero evidence for this supposition, …

I see that you don't know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. So once again you demonstrate misunderstanding what most schoolchildren are familiar with.

Another big LOL! So most schoolchildren are familiar with 'the human genome started perfect and has only degraded'.

Let me guess - you were home schooled, right?

Why don't you explain to everyone how you can determine the fitness of a genome without any reference to its environment.

OK, I'll bite. How did you determine the genome was created perfect? How do you determine the robustness of a genome with no regard to changes in its environment?

I never said nor did Dr. Sanford say in his book that the genome was created perfect. That's what you said because your programming is set to auto-slander.

Dr. Sanford wrote:

"Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding." pp. 148-149.

"Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding." pp. 148-149.

According to your woeful misunderstanding of genetics, you think all life was created between 60K and 200K years ago, right?

I'll ask for the third time. How did you determine that robustness of a genome now is worse than the robustness of a genome then with no regard to changes in its environment? We know for a fact the environment has changed tremendously over the last 200K years. Ice ages have come and gone, sea levels have risen and fallen, many potential predator and prey animal species (like almost all the large mammals in N. America) have gone extinct.

Sanford: "Genetic damage results in aging, and aging shortens lifespan. This is true for the individual and for the population. Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding. Is there any evidence of this?

The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!"

There you have it folks. That accurate scientific textbook The Bible tells us life spans have been shortening! This despite the well documented evidence that lifespans in industrialized countries have lengthened dramatically in the last 200 years.

That's a good reason why both Sanford and you deserve to be thought of as nutters.

Please note that Sanford is using a word that you refuse to understand: "conclude," as in "conclusion."

Sanford: "Is there any evidence of this?"

"The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!"

I do accept that argument as evidence in the sense that seemingly nonsensical histories and beliefs are later validated by undeniable arguments.

You are being very persuasive that Dr. Sanford has a valid argument by insisting on misrepresenting him or by just being a fool, as if purposely refusing to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions.

"The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, and when inbreeding was entirely benign. In fact, the life expectancies recorded in the book of Genesis seem unbelievable. According to the Bible, in the beginning, people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old!"

I do accept that argument as evidence in the sense that seemingly nonsensical histories and beliefs are later validated by undeniable arguments.

Of course you accept "the Bible says" as evidence Bunky. But science doesn't. Too bad for you.

Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is so clever that it bypasses the need to define robustness and to model the environment.

Funny, before it was yours and Sanford's idea. Now it's just Sanford's. Why the bail out? How does your "devolution" hypothesis, the one you've been pimping, determine robustness with no regard for environment?

You are being very persuasive that Dr. Sanford has a valid argument by insisting on misrepresenting him or by just being a fool, as if purposely refusing to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions.

LOL! So you're now stating that Sanford doesn't say the genome is degrading??

I never claimed to have proven Sanford's theorem before I heard of Dr. Sanford. But I did shorten his proof: http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

Here is my contribution to the theory of devolution: http://everythingimportant.org/devolution

How did you determine in your version that robustness of a genome now is worse than the robustness of a genome 200K years ago with no regard to changes in its environment? Another "clever" method like Sanford's, so clever it can't be written down or explained?

If you want to believe that the scientific evidence for "the human genome is degrading" is "Noah …

You obviously didn't understand my claim that Sanford's proof is based on five empirically verifiable axioms. So do you think it's possible that God is fulfilling His word in you (2 Thessalonians 2:11)?

"5. Whenever information or code is expressed in the alphabet of any language, successive randomcopying errors of that code will inevitably destroy the information beyond useful functionality after a limited number of iterations."

You axiom only applies in the very specific case of a single 100% optimized system that is imperfectly copied in a non-changing environment. But DNA and life don't work that way. Life functions as an adaptive feedback loop in a constantly changing environment. The iterative feedback works to keep the population at a 'good enough' level near the optimum.

In the real world the environment changes, the DNA changes, and the feedback loop drives the functionality towards the new 'good enough' point. It doesn't matter one whit what the previous function was or if has 'degraded'. All that matters is that altered function in the new, current environment does the job.

Since your axiom #5 is a load of non-applicable crap, the whole premise of the "theorem" collapses like a flimsy house of cards.

Maybe learn a little evolutionary biology before next time so you won't make so many beginner's blunders.

"5. Whenever information or code is expressed in the alphabet of any language, successive random copying errors of that code will inevitably destroy the information beyond useful functionality after a limited number of iterations."

You axiom only applies in the very specific case of a single 100% optimized system that is imperfectly copied in a non-changing environment.

Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans. http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?p=6413#p6413 Or do you believe that your body is a 100% optimized system in perfect health? Think of your DNA as an instruction manual. Mutate your DNA as often as you like in whatever continually changing environment you prefer. You would be extraordinarily foolish to think that you had a sensible chance of benefiting from the mutations, even in the most favorable environment. You should expect being irreparably harmed. Your accusation clearly reveals a faith in the most ridiculous fantasies of children (Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, etc).

Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans.

Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us your clever way genius.

Think of your DNA as an instruction manual. Mutate your DNA as often as you like in whatever continually changing environment you prefer. You would be extraordinarily foolish to think that you had a sensible chance of benefiting from the mutations, even in the most favorable environment. You should expect being irreparably harmed.

Populations evolve over time dummy, not individuals. I can provide you right now with some know beneficial mutations, like APO-A1 Milano that provide natural protection from high cholesterol. It was first seen in Italy and is currently spreading through and becoming fixed in the local population.

You claim mutations can only 'degrade', I can show you beneficial ones. You lose.

BTW, you've convinced me that not only don't you know anything about evolutionary biology, you also are clueless when it comes to understanding logical arguments. A typical ignorant Fundy IDCer in other words.

Your axiom is wrong, your premise is invalid, so your conclusion is worthless. All the rest is just you beating your gums.

Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us your clever way genius.

You have no need to be concerned about advanced topics Sir Knight. First try to master the concepts from elementary school that you have misunderstood repeatedly.

Populations evolve over time dummy, not individuals.

There is nothing Sir Knight that prevents individuals from evolving or devolving if you can change their DNA.

I can provide you right now with some know beneficial mutations, like APO-A1 Milano that provide natural protection from high cholesterol.

There is nothing in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem that would prevent the occasional appearance of a beneficial mutation. Let's see you prove that Adam and Eve didn't have APO-A1 Milano, that this "mutation" didn't persist in mankind for thousands of years and that other phenomenally healthy groups don't have APO-A1 Milano. Admit your defeat Sir Knight.

You claim mutations can only 'degrade'

Where have I said that Sir Knight? Please provide an exact quote with a working link. Once again you have demonstrated that you need to read and think more carefully and stop imagining what you have been programmed to believe.

Thorton: Tell us again how you determine robustness with no reference to the environment. Tell us how you know genes were more robust in the past. You claim Sanford did it in a 'clever' way but you can't say how. Tell us your clever way genius.

You have no need to be concerned about advanced topics Sir Knight. First try to master the concepts from elementary school that you have misunderstood repeatedly.

Cowardly avoidance of important questions noted. You're an absolute ignoramus about actual evolutionary theory and mechanisms, you got called on it, and now all you can do is bluster to try and save your ego. Too funny!

There is nothing Sir Knight that prevents individuals from evolving or devolving if you can change their DNA.

Populations evolve dummy, not individuals. That really is Biology 101. Individuals get the DNA they're born with. It's the allele distribution in populations that defines evolution. Your ignorance on the topic is truly amazing. Well, given your Fundy motives maybe not...

There is nothing in Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem

There we go...now it's back to being Sanford's theorem again. I'm talking about your 'improved' version, the one with your name on it. Suddenly you're too embarrassed to claim credit?

Let's see you prove that Adam and Eve didn't have APO-A1 Milano,

Double LOL! Let's see you prove Adam and Eve were real people. Remember how dumb you looked on your 'Mitochondrial Eve' boner?

T: You claim mutations can only 'degrade'

Where have I said that Sir Knight?

It's in your Axiom 5, the idiotic one you made up that has no connection to reality, and in everything you've written so far.

Let's recap. You claim the human genome has degraded and is inadequately robust, but you can't explain how to determine robustness. You also can't explain why, if the genome is so inadequate, why the population increased to 6.9 billion in the last two millennia.

You're not doing too good here Bunky. You may want to rethink your strategy.